Comparison of ethical frameworks for distribution of COVID-19 vaccines
| Priority to frontline and essential workers? | Priority to high risk of severe disease/ death? | Priority to high risk of infection? | Priority to saving the most lives? | Other criteria? | |
| Global allocation criteria | |||||
| Jecker, Wightman, Diekema | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Narrow social utility, help the needy, reduce health disparities, show equal respect, build trust |
| WHO | Yes | No | No | No | Proportional to population |
| WHO/ SAGE | Yes | Qualified | Qualified | Qualified | Opening economies |
| Emanuel, Persad, Kern, et al | Yes | No | No | No | SEYLL, priority to the disadvantaged, reduce risk of transmission |
| Domestic allocation criteria | |||||
| NASEM | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Reduce risk of transmission, equality |
| Johns Hopkins University | Yes | Yes | Qualified | Yes | Reduce risk of transmission, reciprocity, trust, opening economies |
| ACIP | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Maximise benefits/minimise harms, equity |
ACIP, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; NASEM, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine; SAGE, Strategic Advisory Group of Experts; SEYLL, standard expected years of life lost.